Skip to main content
Search
Search
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
No Access

Analysing relationship between productivity and knowledge economy data of EU countries (including Turkey) by using canonical correlation analysis

Published Online:June 6, 2012pp 437-455https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2012.047191

Abstract

For the last 200 years, neo-classical economies have recognised only two factors of production: labour and capital. Knowledge, productivity, education and intellectual capital were all regarded as exogenous factors that are falling outside the system. Knowledge is a part of production systems in emerging economies. Also relationship between knowledge and productivity is an important aspect either. This study aims to find a relationship between the knowledge economy and the productivity for EU countries (including Turkey) using canonical correlation analysis. In contrast to previous works, instead of using firms’ data, the macroeconomic data of countries is used for the analysis. The aim of this study is to find which of the knowledge economy variables has the most significant correlation between productivity variables, and also the possibility of existence of gender-based relations is scrutinised. According to the results of the analysis, patent number, computer usage and internet access level have significantly affected productivity. On the other hand, gross domestic product per capita as a productivity variable also has significant effect on knowledge economy variables. For gender-based variables, however, no correlation has been extracted. Finally, the results are discussed in the final section and some comments about knowledge economy and productivity are made.

Keywords

canonical correlation, productivity, knowledge economy, European Union, emerging economies, Turkey

References

  • 1. Amendola, G. , Dosi, G. , Papagni, E. (1993). ‘The dynamics of international competitiveness’. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv. 129, 3, 451-471 Google Scholar
  • 2. Bajona, C. , Locay, L. (2009). ‘Entrepreneurship and productivity: the slow growth of the planned economies’. Review of Economic Dynamics. 12, 505-522 Google Scholar
  • 3. Bartelsman, E.J. , Doms, M. (2000). ‘Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata’. Journal of Economic Literature. 38, 3, 569-594 Google Scholar
  • 4. Brécard, D. , Fougeyrollas, A. , Le Mouël, P. , Lemiale, L. , Zagamé, P. (2006). ‘Macro-economic consequences of European research policy: prospects of Nemesismodel in the year 2030’. Research Policy. 25, 7, 910-924 Google Scholar
  • 5. Breja, S.K. , Banwet, D.K. , Iyer, K.C. (2010). ‘Role of flexibility in sustaining excellence: case of a TQM company’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 5, 3, 333-365 Abstract, Google Scholar
  • 6. Carroll, C. (2006). ‘Canonical correlation analysis: assessing links between multiplex networks’. Social Networks. 28, 310-330 Google Scholar
  • 7. Desai, D.A. (2008). ‘Improving productivity and profitability through Six Sigma: experience of a small-scale jobbing industry’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 3, 3, 290-310 Abstract, Google Scholar
  • 8. DTI (2006). UK Productivity and Competitiveness Indicators 2006. London, UK:Department of Trade and Industry Google Scholar
  • 9. Elangovan, K. , Selladurai, V. , Devadasan, S.R. , Goyal, S.K. , Muthu, S. (2007). ‘Quality and productivity improvement of executive decisions in maintenance engineering: an ESS-basedv approach’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 2, 1, 112-139 Abstract, Google Scholar
  • 10. Eurostat (2011). Accessed on 22 October 2011, Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/themes Google Scholar
  • 11. Gou, Z. , Fyfe, C. (2004). ‘A canonical correlation neural network for multicollinearity and functional data’. Neural Networks. 17, 2, 285-293 Google Scholar
  • 12. Hair, J.F., Jr. , Anderson, R.E. , Tatham, R.L. , Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall Google Scholar
  • 13. Hall, B.H. , Mairesse, J. (1995). ‘Exploring the relationship between R&D and productivity in French manufacturing firms’. Journal of Econometrics. 65, 1, 263-293 Google Scholar
  • 14. Helo, P. , Phusavat, K. , Anussornnitisarn, P. (2010). ‘Fast moving consumer goods – a productivity perspective on supply chain’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 5, 3, 269-285 Abstract, Google Scholar
  • 15. Helo, P. , Takala, J. , Phusavat, K. (2009). ‘Productivity measurement for knowledge work in research and development’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 4, 1, 39-54 Abstract, Google Scholar
  • 16. Hotelling, H. (1935). ‘The most predictable criterion’. Journal of Educational Psychology. 26, 139-142 Google Scholar
  • 17. Hotelling, H. (1936). ‘Relations between two sets of variables’. Biometrika. 28, 3/4, 321-377 Google Scholar
  • 18. Huang, S.Y. , Lee, M.H. , Hsiaoc, C.K. (2009). ‘Nonlinear measures of association with kernel canonical correlation analysis and applications’. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference. 139, 2162-2174 Google Scholar
  • 19. Johnson, R.A. , Wichern, D.W. (1998). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. 4th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall Google Scholar
  • 20. Lattin, J. , Carroll, J.D. , Green, P.E. (2003). Analyzing Multivariate Data. Pacific Grove, CA:Thomson Learning Google Scholar
  • 21. Lichtenberg, F.R. , Siegel, D. (1991). ‘The impact of R&D investment on productivity: new evidence using linked R&D-LRD data’. Economic Inquiry. 29, 2, 203-229 Google Scholar
  • 22. Martinez, D. , Rodriguez, J. , Torres, J.L. (2008). ‘The productivity paradox and the new economy: the Spanish case’. Journal of Macroeconomics. 30, 1569-1586 Google Scholar
  • 23. Monat, J.P. (2007). ‘Motivational aspects of corporate productivity maximisation: a field study’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 2, 2, 177-192 Abstract, Google Scholar
  • 24. Nelson, R.R. (1981). ‘Research on productivity growth and productivity differences: dead ends and new departures’. Journal of Economic Literature. 19, 3, 1029-1064 Google Scholar
  • 25. Nesta, L. (2008). ‘Knowledge and productivity in the world’s largest manufacturing corporations’. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization. 67, 886-902 Google Scholar
  • 26. Shahin, A. (2008). ‘The relationship between quality and productivity: a new perspective’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 3, 2, 206-222 Abstract, Google Scholar
  • 27. Shapiro, P. , Youtie, J. , Yogeesvaran, K. , Jaafar, Z. (2006). ‘Knowledge economy measurement: methods, results and insights from the Malaysian knowledge content study’. Research Policy. 35, 1522-1537 Google Scholar
  • 28. Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. Canada:John Wiley and Sons Google Scholar
  • 29. Subramanian, A. , Mital, A. (2009). ‘Productivity and disability: the need to modify work standards’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 4, 2, 212-227 Abstract, Google Scholar
  • 30. Yamamoto, H. , Yamaji, H. , Fukusaki, E. , Ohnob, H. , Fukuda, H. (2008). ‘Canonical correlation analysis for multivariate regression and its application to metabolic fingerprinting’. Biochemical Engineering Journal. 40, 199-204 Google Scholar
  • 31. Yin, X. (2004). ‘Canonical correlation analysis based on information theory’. Journal of Multivariate Analysis. 91, 161-176 Google Scholar
  • 32. Zailani, S. , Abdul Wahid, N. , Premkumar, R. , Sathasivam, M. (2007). ‘The relationship between quality improvement and firms’ productivity in Malaysia’. Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management. 2, 3, 347-364 Abstract, Google Scholar
Previous article
Next article